Jamie Raskin: “I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting…”

“I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and has been used repeatedly over the last century. [From the Harvard Law Review] The Lost History of the ``Universal'' Injunction (Mila Sohoni) The issuance of injunctions that reach beyond just the plaintiffs has recently become the subject of a mounting wave of censorious commentary, including by members of Congress, a Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, and the President. Critics of these ``universal'' injunctions have claimed that such injunctions are a recent invention and that they exceed the power conferred by Article III to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . . Equity.'' This Article rebuts the proposition that the universal injunction is a recent invention and that it violates Article III or the traditional limits of equity as practiced in the federal courts. As far back as 1913, the Supreme Court itself enjoined federal officers from enforcing a federal statute not just against the plaintiff, but against anyone, until the Court had decided the case. If the Supreme Court can issue a universal injunction against enforcement of a federal law, then--as an Article III matter--so can a lower federal court.…”